Image Credit: Anna Moneymaker / Staff / Getty Images 
None of America’s trading partners that have struck deals with the Trump administration have suggested they want to back out of those deals after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s “emergency” tariffs, US trade representative Jamieson Greer has said.
“The deals were not premised on whether or not the emergency tariff litigation would rise or fall,” Greer said during an interview with CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
“So it’s totally normal for these countries to talk to each other, have meetings internally to determine this. But rest assured, I’ve been speaking to these folks as well, and I’ve been telling them for a year, whether this case—whether we won or lost—we were going to have tariffs, the president’s policy was going to continue. That’s why they signed these deals even while the litigation was pending.”
Greer said he had spoken with representatives from a number of countries, and that the administration expects its trading partners to stand by the deals.
“We expect our partners to stand by them. And I haven’t heard anyone yet come to me and say the deal’s off. They want to see how this plays out. I’m in active conversation with them on it.”
President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all US trading partners last year, with levels climbing higher than 100% in some cases, including against China, which imposed its own tariffs in response.
A number of countries negotiated new deals with the US in order to lower trade barriers.
In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court held the administration lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs.
Trump immediately announced a global 10% tariff using Section 22 of the Trade Act of 1974, which he bumped to 15% over the weekend.
Tariffs issued under the Trade Act can reach 15% for a maximum of 150 days to address “large and serious” trade deficits.
President Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed” of some of the judges.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court—absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
He also said there are a number of other methods available to implement tariffs, such as Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” Trump said.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reacted to the decision by saying revenue projections will not be affected by having to issue tariffs under new authority.
“Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026,” Bessent said.
A number of trading partners, including the European Union, have asked for clarity about the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The current situation is not conducive to delivering ‘fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial’ transatlantic trade and investment, as agreed to by both sides and spelled out in the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of August 2025,” the EU commission said, adding, “A deal is a deal. As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honour its commitments set out in the Joint Statement—just as the EU stands by its commitments.
“In particular, EU products must continue to benefit from the most competitive treatment, with no increases in tariffs beyond the clear and all-inclusive ceiling previously agreed.”
